After historic health care ruling, politicians look toward election

Given the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision and other recent rulings he’s disagreed with, U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern was preparing yesterday for another letdown. Instead, the court revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts had broken from his conservative bench colleagues to provide the deciding vote upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, catching McGovern and many others off-guard.

Given the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision and other recent rulings he’s disagreed with, U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern was preparing yesterday for another letdown.

Instead, the court revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts had broken from his conservative bench colleagues to provide the deciding vote upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, catching McGovern and many others off-guard.

“Whether you like the law or you don’t like the law, it’s constitutional,” McGovern, D-3rd, said of the ruling, which covered a host of components, not just the high-profile provision that Americans must carry insurance or pay a fine.

The debate now turns to Congress and races for national office this fall, as Republicans have vowed to still repeal the law they call “Obamacare” — a possibility if they can retain House control and also take the presidency and Senate. House leaders immediately vowed to take a July repeal vote with the current makeup, though several previous attempts have been blocked by the Senate.

Republicans also declared that the apparent election-season victory for Obama and his supporters gives them ammunition to campaign against taxes and perceived government overreach.

In Massachusetts, U.S. Sen. Scott Brown said the law may be constitutional, though it still raises taxes, cuts Medicare and adds debt at an ill-opportune time. Democratic opponent Elizabeth Warren, in turn, called it protection for families and urged Congress to focus on jobs, not re-fighting the battle over the law’s passage two years ago.

Sen. John Kerry also called for an end to “pointless repeal votes, designed to score political points.”

Locally, MetroWest and Milford-area Democrats like Reps. Niki Tsongas, D-5th, and Ed Markey, D-7th, hailed the ruling as a historic victory, one that ensures the sick and the cash-strapped can obtain insurance, that allows children to stay on parental insurance longer and that helps the elderly with drug coverage, among other provisions.

“The decision allows us to build on the remarkable progress we have made so far and bring us closer to what my uncle (Ted) spent his career fighting for,” said a statement from Democrat Joe Kennedy III, running for a seat in the new 4th District. Three Republicans are also vying for that seat.

One of them, Fall River dentist Dr. David Steinhof, issued a statement calling the ruling the latest step in turning America into a “socialist state” and warning that without voter intervention Obama “will not hesitate to use any tool at his disposal, including our own military, on the people of the United States.”

Another 4th District Republican challenger, psychiatrist Dr. Elizabeth Childs, called for repeal and replacement, criticizing the bill for focusing too heavily on insurance as the solution.

While she calls ensuring that those with pre-existing conditions can get insurance a “basic humane principle,” she also believes the law will lead to rationing to control costs, takes decision-making away from doctors and patients, and relies too heavily on reducing payments to providers.

Page 2 of 2 - The third Republican, Sean Bielat, said he is not against regulation altogether, but believes the law imposes too many taxes and should be repealed to give the free market time to work. Competition among insurers should foster some of the law’s provisions, he argued, such as extended coverage for children on parental plans.

“The notion that unless you mandate it it’s not going to happen is nonsensical at best,” he said.

But Democrats such as McGovern argue that the insurance mandate is needed to spread costs and keep premiums in check for the new provisions.

“You’re not going to be able to control costs unless you have everyone covered,” he said, a point many Republicans contest.

Massachusetts already requires nearly all its residents to carry insurance or pay a tax, and major state insurers had pledged to let children stay on parental insurance until age 26 regardless of the ruling. The local carriers also can’t keep the sick from getting coverage.

But the national law — which dissenting justices would have struck down in its entirety — does help state seniors with the “doughnut-hole” gap in their drug coverage and with free preventive care. It also raises the income level to get help buying insurance.

While Childs argued that the ruling will help spur voter pressure for repeal, McGovern took the opposite tack, saying Americans will now realize the law’s benefits.

“Slowly but surely America is learning what repeal means,” he said.

Associated Press material was used in this report.

(Michael Morton can be reached at 508-626-4338 or mmorton@wickedlocal.com.)